I think this Digital Goebbels needs his little propaganda speeches to boost his opinion of himself by justifing his choices - he should drag his ass to the nearest drug store and get some Viagra, or maybe stop repressing some childhood trauma, whatever it is that makes him so ... maybe he would be less bitter and insecure...

Wow. Lot's of insecurity being shown in these posts - at least as much as Reichman's.

This debate is sooo stupid as to be a moot point on both sides. His "tests" are hardly done in a scientific manner, or to show the best result from either workflow. That's just the facts. They only show an end result that meets his personal values and criteria. That's fine. It works for him - and he makes a living from it.

Digital and analog have their strong points and weak points - neither is "better" - only different. You need to choose the methods that meet your aesthetic criteria and quit worrying about what or how someone else is working.

Bashing digital is just as dumb as bashing analog - but, I know it makes you all feel better if you can find a reason that what you're doing is, in some self-justified way, "superior." How about just making superior images and not getting wrapped up in how they were produced? That's the best way to make your point.

I dont see that its such a big deal, digital or film. If I am ripping off 300 photos an hour, I want to be shooting digital otherwise I would prefer film.

Personally for me know, I prefer to shoot film. Its tactile, and that is something that is absolutely lost with digital.

And how about that plastic digital look. Thats a big negative (no pun). I have never seen people so blown away as when I walked into an art store with a loupe and we put an 8x10 piece of EPP E6 slide film on a light table. Oh but also no color moire with film. That is nasty stuff too.

Also after 100 years when am gone, I hope someone in my family will still have my slides and negs, but I doubt they will be recopying cd's trying to save digital files, but maybe by then they will have some sort of electronic archival storage.

As far as resolution, I went down the test it yourself path for a while since I have a drum scanner and I found that with E100G, scans are so smooth and sharp at 2000 dpi that its almost a dead ringer for Canon bayer digital. The same edge sharpness of around 1-2 pixels and smooth.
With that test I used a Pentax 67II and a 300mm F4 EDIF lens. Absolutely a beast, but the best lens I have ever used.

If you run NI on that 2000 dpi E100G drumscan to pound out the last bit of noise/grain that is still apparent and sharpen it, it gets that plastic look that a lot of people complain about with digital.

Also around this time I emailed one of the digital camera makers and really picked there brains on this and that, but more specifically what was done to a raw file, before it was written, and there answer was they are heavily modified in the camera, color, NR, sharpened, etc etc with very complex algorithms.

If you jump up to 2500 dpi drumscan, it still resolves more detail, but more grain started sneaking in and the edge sharpness goes down to 2-3 pixels. In that case it helps to be using a super super sharp camera like a Mamiya 7.

You can keep going up and I have gotten even more detail at higher levels, but IMO the limit for super clean E100G scans is around 2000-2500 dpi.

All that said if you were to compare the same formats like a Fuji 690 to 35mm 1ds mkII, a 2000 dpi scan you give you 4500 x 6750 or 30 mp and that is a file IMO that would be almost identical pixel to pixel straight off the scanner.

At 2500 dpi you would be talking about 48mp, so I dont really buy all of his argument either.

Still the tonality, and latitude of film makes it a better choice for me since I am not in a hurry, but if I were shooting weddings or whatnot, I would shoot digital for the most part, that is if they ever get the bugs out.

I thought about buying a digital camera. But I'd have to spend several months studying just to know which one to buy. And a long time to figure out how to use it. So I bought a Pentax 67II instead. It fits my hands perfectly, and operatation is completely intuitive.

My camera of choice is a 4x5 view. They are so simple to operate, and give such spectacular results without much effort. But they are bulky to transport, thus the Pentax for travel.

Digital is different than silver based photography. Watercolors are different than oils. Each new medium expands our possibilities, but we don't throw out the old media.

I find it interesting that ocassionally there will be a digital segment in a TV show--usually when some special effects are needed (maybe for ease of editing?). But I can always tell the digital shots--they have a different characteristic. Not bad, not good, just different. They do seem less realistic to my eyes. Maybe it's the over enhanced image?

What I can't see about digital is spending the amount of money they want for something that will be technologically obsolete and probably unrepairable in a few years.

Then there is the archival nature of black & white silver based photography. We have a generation who have lost their family snapshots as the dyes in their color photos fade. The prior generations (who used black and white) have permanent snapshots.

Unless you convert your digital files every few years to the latest storage device, I suspect users will also lose their snapshots.

Yes, digital is wonderful for commercial photography. I'm involved with this regularly at work, since I'm responsible for catalogs, ads, and other marketing materials.

And it's great for temporary snapshots.

But I just don't see it as "fun" for my recreational use.

I predict a slight renewed interest in silver photography within a decade or so--not to the pre-digital levels, but some new kids will come along, find out about it, and think it's pretty wonderful. At least, I hope.

There is an intrinsic beauty in the silver based print, that I have yet to see in any digital image.

Unless you are making 3x4 foot murals, the extra resolution means little. I prefer the other qualities that film has over digital as well as making the images myself in the darkroom.

I agree, well said.

If resolution is the end game of it all in photography, then film most certainly is going to die. But we know that is not the case and that there is much more to what we do than worry ourselves about resolution and that is why we call ourselves "apugers". So. let's get out there and "win one for the Gipper" (or for the "filmer")!

Personally for me know, I prefer to shoot film. Its tactile, and that is something that is absolutely lost with digital.

I agree with you 100% here - there is just something about handling film that beats processing it on the computer. The other day someone likened digital to "data processing" - a sentiment I agree with.

If resolution is the end game of it all in photography, then film most certainly is going to die.

Actually, one of the reasons I still use film is that in my own comparative tests I do get more resolution from it,along with much better exposure latitude. I agree, though, one of the principle reasons I still use it is for archival results.

Another slight (not) issue is that I already have a 67II. For the huge price of a 1Ds Mk II and a set of lenses I can buy an awful lot of film.

I obviously agree with all the benefits of film that have been mentioned previously. One option that shouldn't be overlooked by any analog photographer considering switching to digital is the purchase of a dedicated film scanner. If you're like me and you don't need all the unnecessary features of a digital camera including the LCD screen, then a film scanner is a much more economical option. For the price of the new Nikon D200 body you could buy a Coolscan V that produces images at a size of up to 13x19 at 300ppi from 35mm film (not sure what the megapixel conversion value is but it's much higher than most DSLRs) and still have money left over to buy a 35mm manual SLR system with lenses. This was the option I chose. The one huge difference between the two disciplines at that point is time spent. I understand a lot of the digital converts are impatient people who thrive on products that give them immediate satisfaction such as iPods, xBoxes, cell phones with everything built-in, etc. Well, there is a high price for all these technological advances. Plus, who wants to upgrade every year something new comes out? My budget certainly doesn't permit it. And for the amount of time you'd spend online reading rediculous articles on Luminous Landscape and researching the next biggest thing in digicams, you could be scanning film and saving your hard earned money for more lenses, etc.

It's all about immediate satisfaction which is indicitive of our society as a whole: no one has any patience left, nothing is worth waiting for. I disagree. The process is as important as the outcome and if there is little or no process, then the satisfaction level of acheivement is reduced also. Then again, this statement is coming from an idiot who spent two months refinishing the hardwood floors in his home by himself instead of having someone else do it or just carpeting the whole house. I got so much satisfaction from being meticulous and doing a fine job. My pocket was thanking me too.

Just my 2.3932 Yen,
Ara

Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

its not the canon, its a DX2 I have seen a comparison between the Canon and the Nikon in a photography magazine, and the Canon did look better (as you would expect as the sensor is bigger) But I doubt it would be enought to change the result of this. Not sure if the fact it was compared to a rangefinder makes a differecne as I am lead to belive RF's can get a greater res than SLR's.

Great link! For me it sums it up: does digi have detail, sharpness, resolution, and all that? Sure. But is it beautiful? No! No! and still No!

To hell with lines per inch, DPI, rabbit ass hairs and all the rest of the silly apparatus! A Holga or a cheap folder has way more beauty in the picture than anything digi.

Using film since before it was hip.

"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11